Artificial Children?

Go to page

So I've been seeing news stories here and there regarding an eventual move from natural childbirth to artificial childbirth as seen HERE. A question to ponder; if children are born artificially, are they really born of 'water' and do you think they can be saved? Maybe (hopefully) it won't even get that far before the second coming. Thoughts?

So I've been seeing news stories here and there regarding an eventual move from natural childbirth to artificial childbirth as seen HERE. A question to ponder; if children are born artificially, are they really born of 'water' and do you think they can be saved? Maybe (hopefully) it won't even get that far before the second coming. Thoughts?

Our physical bodies are mere corporeal containers or facilitators equipped with a myriad of restraint and limits. Our bodies will pass or transfigure. Our bodies are also "individualistic property."

When mankind complicates the corporeal restraint model, it may complicate it to greater restraint, harm or limitations, or possibly to less restraint, harm or limitations. If complication will harm then violence to life can be argued.

The question could be asked, "is it moral" to force a manufactured strategy upon a new life which comes into this world? The new life "owns" their own body and guardian or not, violence to life is an ethical trespass.

Thus the artificial childbirth can be argued circumstantially as being "violence to life," or a "risk to violence to life." Yet the argument is subjective, as one can argue a rebuttal that it can be "life-saving."

Thus the artificial childbirth can be argued circumstantially as being "violence to life," or a "risk to violence to life." Yet the argument is subjective, as one can argue a rebuttal that it can be "life-saving."

Indeed, that's what the article does argue as being pro-artificial. It says that no longer will women be at risk of certain health issues during pregnancy and the risk of death during childbirth will be eliminated.

Account Closed

As I understand it, no flesh-and-blood child would be shut off from salvation, no matter in what way they were born. It wouldn't be the fault of the child, no matter what evil their parents (or parent, singular, perhaps in this case) had done. I think we see that in King Josiah - he was the son of Amon, the son of Manasseh, both men who didn't do right in the sight of God, yet young Josiah "did what was right in the sight of Jehovah, and walked in all the way of David his father, and turned not aside to the right hand nor to the left." (2 Kings 22:2). He was, in figure, someone marked out as displaying the Spirit of Christ, the true David, rather than the disposition of his evil father and grandfather.

This science though, there's no doubt in my mind that this is an evil development. Men trying to overturn the natural ordering of life which the Creator has established. That's always been the devil's way though, hasn't it? To oppose himself to everything that God has established. I don't know whether God will allow this or not. However, Lanolin is right: we shouldn't be troubled by it, or be overly occupied with it. We're looking to our returning King, who'll set everything right, executing judgement and justice (Jeremiah 23:5) on all the impious things that the world is determined to go on with, putting an end to them.

Complicates, that's exactly the word to use here. Man is always complicating things. How simple and practical is God's way of life for man - how simple and practical life would've been for Man in innocence in the garden. But sin came in and complicated everything. Satan began it all by raising a question, and he carries on in just the same subtle way: "Yea, hath God said...?" "Does it really have to be like this...?" "Why don't you try your own way...?"

Indeed, that's what the article does argue as being pro-artificial. It says that no longer will women be at risk of certain health issues during pregnancy and the risk of death during childbirth will be eliminated.

As I understand it, no flesh-and-blood child would be shut off from salvation, no matter in what way they were born. It wouldn't be the fault of the child, no matter what evil their parents (or parent, singular, perhaps in this case) had done. I think we see that in King Josiah - he was the son of Amon, the son of Manasseh, both men who didn't do right in the sight of God, yet young Josiah "did what was right in the sight of Jehovah, and walked in all the way of David his father, and turned not aside to the right hand nor to the left." (). He was, in figure, someone marked out as displaying the Spirit of Christ, the true David, rather than the disposition of his evil father and grandfather.

This science though, there's no doubt in my mind that this is an evil development. Men trying to overturn the natural ordering of life which the Creator has established. That's always been the devil's way though, hasn't it? To oppose himself to everything that God has established. I don't know whether God will allow this or not. However, Lanolin is right: we shouldn't be troubled by it, or be overly occupied with it. We're looking to our returning King, who'll set everything right, executing judgement and justice () on all the impious things that the world is determined to go on with, putting an end to them.

Complicates, that's exactly the word to use here. Man is always complicating things. How simple and practical is God's way of life for man - how simple and practical life would've been for Man in innocence in the garden. But sin came in and complicated everything. Satan began it all by raising a question, and he carries on in just the same subtle way: "Yea, hath God said...?" "Does it really have to be like this...?" "Why don't you try your own way...?"

I have to admit that Exodus 34:7 does puzzle me at times, where it speaks about God "by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation." Perhaps that speaks about those who oppose themselves to God, in contrast to His own, who might be referred to by His "keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin...". I'm not sure though, and those are deep waters. I wouldn't want to introduce any confusion about the great parallel truths of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility!

Yes, welcome Grant! Correct. There is always a bit of truth to Satan's lies, "Surely you will not die..."; because of our sinful nature, we seem to gravitate toward that little truth, blanketed in a lie. How mighty pleasing and pleasureful things seem when presented by the enemy.

Account Closed

Ah, how very true. He knows very well how to appeal to us. That does tend to discourage me. It annoys me how easily I get duped! I shouldn't get discouraged though, I should remember that "greater is he that is in you than he that is in the world." (1 John 4:4). God has thoroughly exposed Satan for what he is: "a liar and its father" (John 8:44) and a "crooked serpent" (Isaiah 27:1). It's wonderful, isn't it, that God has even seen fit to give us a picture of the end of the old deceiver! "In that day Jehovah, with his sore and great and strong sword, will visit leviathan the fleeing serpent, and leviathan the crooked serpent; and he will slay the monster that is in the sea." (Isaiah 27:1). He's fleeing, he's already on the retreat.

Account Closed

So I've been seeing news stories here and there regarding an eventual move from natural childbirth to artificial childbirth as seen HERE. A question to ponder; if children are born artificially, are they really born of 'water' and do you think they can be saved? Maybe (hopefully) it won't even get that far before the second coming. Thoughts?

You need to be careful about taking these kind of articles too seriously. They contain lots of fudge words like "could, maybe, might, etc". The fact of the matter is the technology the speak of is in it's infancy (pun intended) and may run into problems they cannot resolve. Either way it would be EXPENSIVE, terribly so. Why pay a fortune to do what peasants do for free every day?

Thank you very much, Great Fiction. Everyone here's been very welcoming.

I feel that that's correct, in this case.

I have to admit that Exodus 34:7 does puzzle me at times, where it speaks about God "by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation." Perhaps that speaks about those who oppose themselves to God, in contrast to His own, who might be referred to by His "keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin...". I'm not sure though, and those are deep waters. I wouldn't want to introduce any confusion about the great parallel truths of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility!

Something to remember is that by Jesus death and resurrection....we are and have been under grace and, so God no longer visits the iniquity of the fathers unto the third and fourth generation. So each person has their own grace. And as you said....no person, flesh and blood child will be cut off from salvation. As long as the process of inqubating these children requires the use of peoples natural dna then, God's design will still be in their dna

Amen! It's often the best way just to be simple in our understanding of these things, isn't it? We can rest on the assurance that this is the dispensation of mercy, the acceptable year of the Lord as far as all men are concerned.